Ridenour-Baker Grocery Co. v. Monroe

• Decision Date: 22 December 1897
• Citation: 43 S.W. 633,142 Mo. 165
• Parties: RIDENOUR-BAKER GROCERY CO. v. MONROE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

43 S.W. 633

142 Mo. 165

RIDENOUR-BAKER GROCERY CO. v. MONROE.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 22, 1897.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES — EVIDENCE — HOMESTEAD — PERSONS ENTITLED.

1. A conveyance by a daughter is void against her creditors where it was made on the eve of insolvency to her mother on an agreement to convey to the daughter certain land of which the latter knew nothing, and to pay a part of the price that she might receive if she ever sold the land conveyed to her.

2. A daughter owning a half interest in the premises occupied by her parents with whom she does not live, but whom she and her brother help to support, is not the head of a family, so as to entitle her to claim the premises as her homestead, under Rev. St. 1889, § 5435, providing that a dwelling house, etc., shall be exempt to every housekeeper or head of a family using it as a homestead.

Appeal from circuit court, Newton county; J. C. Lamson, Judge.

Action by the Ridenour-Baker Grocery Company against Dicey P. Monroe. From a decree for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

This is an appeal from a final decree of the circuit court of Newton county dismissing a bill in equity by plaintiff to set aside a certain conveyance of real estate in Neosho as fraudulent, and to subject the same to a judgment in favor of plaintiff against Lula E. Monroe, the daughter of defendant. It is an equitable suit in aid of an attachment, and based upon section 571, Rev. St. 1889. The plaintiff was and is a creditor of the firm of Bryan & Monroe, composed of J. L. Bryan and Miss Lula E. Monroe, doing a mercantile business at Neosho from about the 1st of October, 1893, until about the 12th of March, 1894, when the establishment was foreclosed by attachment suits in favor of the Bank of Neosho and the plaintiff and other creditors. Plaintiff's attachment suit was commenced on March 15, 1894, and in due time judgment was obtained by plaintiff against the firm of Bryan & Monroe for the sum of $260. On the 7th day of March, 1894, Miss Lula E. Monroe, by warranty deed, conveyed her undivided one-half of the lot in suit to her mother, Mrs. Dicey Monroe, for the nominal sum of $270. At the time said deed was executed Miss Lula Monroe and said firm of Bryan & Monroe were insolvent. On 13th day of March, 1894, the sheriff of Newton county attached and levied upon all the right, title, and interest of said Lula Monroe in and to the lot in suit. The evidence discloses that one Easterday, by deed dated May 25, 1891, and recorded March 16, 1892, conveyed the real estate in suit to Henry and Lula Monroe for the consideration of $145. The lot in dispute is situated in Neosho, Newton county, and contains something less than 3 acres, being 200 feet by 600 feet, and a dwelling house of 7 rooms is situated on it. It is variously estimated at from $1,000 to $2,000. Plaintiff charges the deed from Lula Monroe to her mother was fraudulent and without consideration, and that the defendant combined and conspired with her daughter to cheat, defraud, hinder, and delay the creditors of Bryan & Monroe, and prays that it may be set aside, and said lot subjected to its judgment, and for proper relief. Defendant in her amended answer avers that she paid value for said lot; and, secondly, it was and is a homestead, and not subject to sale under execution or attachment. The circuit court found for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Lyman W. White, for appellant. Brunk & Dabbs and Pratt & Phipps, for respondent.

GANTT, P. J. (after stating the facts).

1. This record leaves no doubt in our minds that the deed from Lula Monroe to her mother, Mrs. Dicey Monroe, was utterly without consideration. The evidence of the mother and daughter establish this fact. Miss Monroe testified that the consideration for the deed was a promise by her mother of $500 if the mother ever sold the place, — $1 in cash and her mother's undivided interest in Tennessee land; that she had never received any conveyance of the Tennessee land, and she knew absolutely nothing of its location, value, or amount. The mother testified that she promised the daughter $250 if she ever sold the lot in dispute and her undivided interest in her Tennessee land, but she had no intention whatever of ever selling the Neosho lot; that she had never made her a deed to the Tennessee land. It appears from Henry Monroe's evidence that his mother was one of 11 heirs in the Tennessee tract, but he did not know...